need new powder

[rocky.223]

I'm reloading for my marlin 30-30 lever that I plan to use for hunting. I have Hornady 160 gr. leverevolution bullets and Hornady cases. I have been using IMR 4064 but really don't like the way the stick type powder flows from my rcbs measure. Any thoughts on a better powder? If it works with my .223 all the better but main concern is for the 30-30. Thanks all!

[William T. Watts]

I burn a lot of IMR4064, I like it because it's clean burning which is important to me. I don't like a ball powder because it's double base and doesn't burn as clean as a single base powder, the ball powder meters well but expect to spend more time cleaning your rifle because of it. William

[rocky.223]

I do agree IMR4064 is clean. I am stuck hand weighing each charge though as the variance is to much for my liking through the measure. As my experience is limited I thought to ask those wiser than I for input. And for that I thank you!

[Sport45]

Ramshot TAC measures great and works well in everything I've tried it in. I don't reload 30-03 though, so can't make any load suggestions. But it appears to be in the right burn range for the cartridge.

[William T. Watts]

Rocky there are a couple of problems with what your wanting to do, the lever guns aren't noted for strong hammer springs. My Marlin will not reliably ignite a CCI primer, the CCI would be your best choice If you use a ball powder. If you do decide to go with H335 or similar powder I would try Winchester primers first and see if they work. I know the CCI primer will ignite ball powder fine if your hammer spring is up to the task, often times you have to take a round about way to get where you want to go. William

[Mike Irwin]

" I am stuck hand weighing each charge though as the variance is to much for my liking through the measure."

Want to know the beautiful thing about most of the classic IMR powders like 4064, 4320, 3031, etc.?

You can get incredibly uniform ballistics and exceptional accuracy with volumetrically metered charges that vary significantly in weight.

The IMR family of powders are incredibly forgiving in so many ways it's not even funny.

If you're getting good accuracy and uniform velocity, don't sweat the weight variations.

I don't load rifle as much as I used to, but when I was, and once I learned just how forgiving the IMR powders are, combined with their versatility, I never felt the need to try any other rifle powders.

[rocky.223]

Thats interesting MIke, I have noted that the performance of IMR4064 to be sufficient for my needs was just more than a little worried about a +/- of .3 out of my measure. I use it for .223 as well and it's quite accurate for me there.

As of right now I have been using Winchester Primers and have had no issues whatsoever so I'll continue to use them. Even better as I can get them locally for $20 per thousand right now.

I may try the H335 as I have load data for that, charge is almost identical to IMR4064. I am still learning and would like to experience different powders to get the feel for the differences. Once again thank you your help is much appreciated.

[Shootest]

Try BLC (2) it measures great, burns clean, almost universal application, and works well in 30/30

[Mike Irwin]

.3 grain swing? That is really nothing when you are talking IRM powders unless you are at or beyond max loads.

Some of my best .243 loads could vary by almost a full grain on either side of my chosen weight and they would still do well under an inch off the bench.

Strive for consistent loading density and you will find happiness.

As for BLC 2, I never had much luck with it our of my guns. Or the Winchester ball rifle powders, either.

[Unclenick]

Hatcher talks of a National Match load comparing two similar burn rate powders that I infer were IMR 1185 and IMR 1186, both now discontinued types. The IMR 1185 grains were 0.032"×0.084" (Diameter×Length). IMR 1186 grains were 0.029"×0.042". Both 1185 and 1186 had 7% DNT deterrent coatings. Hatcher found his arsenal loading equipment could dispense the shorter, narrower IMR 1186 grains to ±0.3 grains, but could only dispense the coarser IMR 1185 to ±0.75 grains. Nonetheless, the sloppy IMR 1185 charge weight spread produced consistently tighter groups all the way to 1000 yards and wound up used in the National Match ammo. Hatcher suggests the ignition characteristics were responsible.

Today, IMR 4064 is the IMR powder closest to the old IMR 1185, with grains 0.031"×0.083", and a 6.5% DNT coating. I have found it very forgiving of packing density changes. More so than IMR 4895, which has a 0.032"×0.056" grain with 5.5% DNT coating. The differences show in the graph below, taken from an experiment published by Dave Milosovich in the Precision Shooting Reloading Guide (Precision Shooting Pub. 1995, p.102). You can see that changes in IMR 4064 charge weight (horizontal axis) produce smaller changes in velocity (vertical axis) than the same changes in IMR 4895 charge weights do. This tells me the IMR 4064 burn rate is less sensitive to changes in temperature and pressure of the two. That should be good not only from the standpoint of being more forgiving of charge weight error, but also of temperature change. This implies better ambient temperature immunity as well. IMR 4064 enjoys a reputation for having an accuracy edge over IMR 4895 in .30 Cal match loads and was used in the original Federal Gold Medal Match .308 loading with the 168 grain MatchKing. I suspect this behavior is why.



If you want to try a spherical propellant, the Ramshot TAC suggested earlier would be my first choice. I spoke with one of their lab techs one time and he explained the coatings used were more modern chemistry than those used on the old military spherical powders and do not need the CCI magnum primer formulation to perform well. WC844, WC846, and WC852 military powders that are sold as H335, BL-(C)2, and H380, employ older coating technology that make them harder to light, which is why they do need it. But with the Ramshot powders, several sources have reported them doing just fine with the Federal 210 and other standard large rifle primers.

[Rangefinder]

H335 in an excellent choice in 30-30.

[rocky.223]

This is exactly why I visit TFL every single day! Unclenick that was very informative and much appreciated! I learn new stuff everyday!

[tkglazie]

Another good option is H4895. Hard to beat in a .30-30 (or in my case, .32 Special)

[emcon5]

Both these 100 yard groups were loaded with IMR 4064, thrown from an RCBS Powder measure:



on edit: 5 rounds in each quarter, 1960's vintage Sako Forester varmint in 243 Win, 90gr Berger, Lapua case, Fed primer.

[Edward429451]

That's very interesting about the 4064. I have had very good results with 4064 in 30/30, 223, 308Win, and 30/06. I have been hand weighing each charge to stay uniform and if I don't have to weigh every charge, that would just make the sky a little bit bluer for me.

In the 30/30 with the Hornady 170gr FP I was using 28.0gr of 4064 and if I recall correctly they were a little over 1900 fps and shot very well, but not quite as good of results as I had with H-335 with the Horn. 170's, which I used 29.5gr of H-335 for 2016 fps and this load was doing about 1-3/4" at 100 yds with peep sights! (rested). Of course you want to work up a load for your rifle but I suggest 335 as a great place to start, and Hornaday 170's.

[rocky.223]

So I worked up a batch of 100 30-30's yesterday. Using my last pound of 4064 with a charge weight of 29 grains I weighed every fifth one and averaged a +/- of .5. one charge even hit +1 grain? That is still under max charge but getting up there. I feel better about using them though and plan to shoot a bunch tomorrow. I checked my measure and all seems fine. cleaned it out with dry cloth but still got the variance though. maybe a problem with the powder measure?